I downloaded a document about PFI regeneration schemes the other day - which listed the Regenter Myatts Field North PFI as 2004.
I happened to be wandering about the area with a fellow Liberal Democrat ex-councillor on Rocket no.9 's Music Hall stars walk last Sunday, and we were commenting on the improved look of the Oval Quarter since the corrugated iron came down. I mentioned to my former colleague (who had said the service charges were very high in these flats) that the Lib Dems must have signed the PFI deal off if it was 2004. "I don't remember it" they said.

PFI council regeneration seems to have been imposed by government, and councillors probably had little choice in it as a funding choice. Housing/Regeneration departments (and the mayor's office) no doubt did all the dirty work of liaising with developers and councillors simply signed on the dotted line. As they often do.

Click to expand...

As Gramsci made plain, PFI was the result of "nu Labour thinking" (my emphasis). It's fair to say that the new Labour predicates on PFI were informed by neo-liberalism, just as were those of the Tories and the Lib-Dems - the whole T.I.N.A. mythology, for a start, that there was no alternative to "the market".

I see at end of article an anonymous person in a Council said that Corbyn would have to back up what he says with plans for funding.

Let's get this straight. It's not about funding.

The Myatts fields / Oval Quarter PFI regeneration scheme fiasco was brain child of Nu Labour thinking on "regeneration". I've posted up in detail on this in Myatts fields thread.

Click to expand...

It is and it isn't about funding. Funding will be necessary, but a Corbyn govt could push through primary legislation to allow local authorities to borrow either from the money markets, or from the Treasury for specific home-building projects. This isn't controversial, indeed it's how things were done before Thatcher.

Corbyn was signalling a break with the Nu Labour orthodoxy on housing ( and acceptance of neo liberalism). During the time Nu Labour were in power they regarded Council estates as the past. Gradually semi privatising them through ALMOs etc was the norm. Council housing itself was regarded as a failure. Lord Adonis and others in the Nu Labour camp argued for move from "monolithic " Council estates to "mixed" communities. A proxy for the social cleansing of working class communities. Nu Labour project was a middle class one. Tony Blair saw the changes brought on by Thatcher , "globalisation" and the worship of "entrepreneurialism" as permanent givens. What Blair offered was middle class politics with a human face. Unlike Thatcher. But in effect Blair was continuation of Thatcher. The working class were supposed to lump it as they had no were else to go.

Click to expand...

And yet my estate, like every other local one I've visited, is more socially-mixed and tenure-mixed than anything developers have achieved, and are the richer for it. When scum like Adonis (was ever a man so mis-named?) talk about "mixed communities", what it boils down to at development level is mix of tenure, and - as shown repeatedly in "regeneration" schemes - that mix of tenure is usually loaded in favour of owner-occupation/private rental from owner and "affordable"/shared ownership, with social tenure being a minority pursuit, and often a stigmatised one, at that.

One of the sadly enduring legacies of new Labour is how taken-for-granted the working class still are as a source of Labour votes. Here in Tulse Hill ward, the local electorate are quite au fait with the Cressingham issue, and have been asking the ward councillors questions. They're being told "oh, we (meaning the ward councillors) have got that cancelled". This is a blatant lie, as a Cressingham resident questioned Lambeth's head of regeneration - Rachel Sharpe - about this earlier this month, and was told emphatically that the regeneration of Cressingham is proceeding.

The best thing Nu Labour did for Corbyn was making him go for another leadership election and assuming he would be finished off by May. They thought with him destroyed by May they could get back control of the party.

Unfortunately the way politics works Nu Labour are in control of Lambeth Labour. I think Cressingham Gardens are right to ask him to support them.

In Jeremy's favour when he was pictured with Bennet his position was not so secure. It is now for time being.

Click to expand...

What Mr Corbyn needs to bear in mind is how many Lambeth Labour councillors voted no confidence in him, in that Progress-inspired poll in 2016.

What Corbyn did in last election was go over the heads of the po!itical e!ite in power in local Councils and Parliament. It is a strategy that worked.

The other thing that Corbyn and McDonnel have brought back is class. Nu Labour were hostile to class politics. Why in the end they alienated a good section of the core support. They thought the working class were finished.

So what I'm saying is that this is not about funding it's a sea change in the Labour party. Nu Labour Council like Lambeth are going to fight a rearguard battle to oppose the essence of what Corbyn represents. A return to class politics. There are irreconcilable ideological differences between the likes of Bennett and Corbyn.

Click to expand...

Bennett is bureau-managerialist to the core. His thought processes revolve around "managing" politics. While managerialism has some utility, when applied to specifically-human problems such as housing, and the dynamics of demand, it's a reactive tool, not a proactive one, and becomes a hindrance. Corbyn at least realises that 3 decades of taking the base of party support for granted has caused a fracture in that support, and that focusing on "marginals" may be a good tactic, but it's a very poor strategy if it progressively - as it has done - erodes your core support elsewhere, and turns other seats into marginals.

The Myatts field PFI took years to get off the drawing board. I don't get the impression it was forced on Lambeth Council. I remember chatting to a Labour Cllr years back. He was enthusiastic about PFI deals. Nu Labour did really think they could work. That Councils would be able to oversee these PFI projects. So no I don't think Cllrs just signed the dotted line.

Click to expand...

Councillors and council officers, even after the credit crunch and crash in 2007/8, believed that PFI made sense, and it might have, IF a), assumptions about growth had been correct, and growth had resumed as previously, and b) the govt - whichever govt - hadn't enforced a politics of economic austerity that not only limited, but curtailed growth. As a result of the crash, the costs for MFN rocketed, and what did Lambeth do? They threw money at the problem, and convinced themselves - against evidence otherwise - that they were getting a good deal.

It is and it isn't about funding. Funding will be necessary, but a Corbyn govt could push through primary legislation to allow local authorities to borrow either from the money markets, or from the Treasury for specific home-building projects. This isn't controversial, indeed it's how things were done before Thatcher.

One of the sadly enduring legacies of new Labour is how taken-for-granted the working class still are as a source of Labour votes. Here in Tulse Hill ward, the local electorate are quite au fait with the Cressingham issue, and have been asking the ward councillors questions. They're being told "oh, we (meaning the ward councillors) have got that cancelled". This is a blatant lie, as a Cressingham resident questioned Lambeth's head of regeneration - Rachel Sharpe - about this earlier this month, and was told emphatically that the regeneration of Cressingham is proceeding.

What Mr Corbyn needs to bear in mind is how many Lambeth Labour councillors voted no confidence in him, in that Progress-inspired poll in 2016..

Click to expand...

Rachel Sharpe and Sue Foster. It's why I think on a local level that Corbyn needs to take on a those who have made there lucrative careers in New Labour. Council .Sue Foster made her career under the Olympic site. Under Tessa Jowell. Jo Negrini is another one. Formerly town centre manager for Brixton. Now chief exec in Croydon. These people are are on big salaries. Over 200 thousand a year. Imo these people should be sacked if Corbyn gets to power. Or before. Hopefully.

I remember Jo Negrini telling me years ago that supporting keeping the Brixton Rec was ridiculous. As that I was one of those people who did things on the "outside". Her regarding herself as a dynamic person who did things for the masses from the inside.

These neo liberal supporters of the New Labour project should lose these secure well paid jobs imo.

These New Labour supporting bereaucrats have way to much influence. More than some Cllrs.

These neo liberal supporters of the New Labour project should lose these secure well paid jobs imo.

Click to expand...

Slightly off-topic - but methinks media superstars such as the Dimbleby brothers and Andrew Marr who manufacture consent to the Neo-Liberal norms would sing a different tune if they were paid the average wage instead of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rachel Sharpe and Sue Foster. It's why I think on a local level that Corbyn needs to take on a those who have made there lucrative careers in New Labour. Council .Sue Foster made her career under the Olympic site. Under Tessa Jowell. Jo Negrini is another one. Formerly town centre manager for Brixton. Now chief exec in Croydon. These people are are on big salaries. Over 200 thousand a year. Imo these people should be sacked if Corbyn gets to power. Or before. Hopefully.

I remember Jo Negrini telling me years ago that supporting keeping the Brixton Rec was ridiculous. As that I was one of those people who did things on the "outside". Her regarding herself as a dynamic person who did things for the masses from the inside.

These neo liberal supporters of the New Labour project should lose these secure well paid jobs imo.

These New Labour supporting bereaucrats have way to much influence. More than some Cllrs.

Click to expand...

These senior council officers don't think of themselves as ideologically-committed. They view themselves as neutral and pragmatic bureaucrats, who are not swayed by anything. Sadly, that sort of arrogance leaves the door open for any old cunt to manipulate them, by convincing them that their vision for a development is the pragmatic one. Scum like Foster make their living doing this. Negrini, IMO, is a different kettle of fish. She jumps on every bandwagon going that might give her a leg up to her next promotion. She's done the whole left politics, identity politics, sexual politics thing, as well as office politics, to get where she is. She's a triumph of networking over talent.

Slightly off-topic - but methinks media superstars such as the Dimbleby brothers and Andrew Marr who manufacture consent to the Neo-Liberal norms would sing a different tune if they were paid the average wage instead of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Click to expand...

In the case of the Dumbledore bros, perhaps being paid the wage they used to pay cubs on the papers they owned (about 2/3rds of the minimum wage) would be salutary.

Sure it's absolutely deliberate. People who've heard of the poposed demolition of Cressingham Gardens but haven't really been following the story will see that picture and conclude that Labour are there to save it.

People that know the story likely won't vote for them anyway so nothing to lose really.

Sure it's absolutely deliberate. People who've heard of the poposed demolition of Cressingham Gardens but haven't really been following the story will see that picture and conclude that Labour are there to save it.

People that know the story likely won't vote for them anyway so nothing to lose really.

Utterly cynical but I've seen them do this kind of thing elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Atkins, our white-headed Cllr, is certainly cynical enough. She was challenged recently about Labour canvassers in the ward telling people they door-stepped that Cressingham isn't being regenerated. She apparently went a non-fetching shade of Bird's Custard, and muttered something that couldn't quite be heard, but which it was doubtful was an apology.

Frankly, if 95% of Cressingham residents had seen that bunch of twats gurning by the estate sign, they'd have offered them some harsh words.

They could, if they were NOT deceitful, simply give you the "total voids" figure they provide to the Cressingham Resident Engagement Panel every month. Incidentally, they apparently count homes let as "temporary accommodation" as voids, the sick bastards.